Council in the Crosshairs

There is so much here, but I will try to address not only this but other points made.

Firstly, 'disdain' is not the proper word to use regarding clergy who - for whatever reason - failed to speak out on the Church's moral doctrines including the proscription against abortion. In those instances in which the matter was one of personal sympathy with the 'pro-choice' cause, the word might have some bearing as one has no right to call oneself an Orthodox (never mind an Orthodox priest or bishop) if one is in direct opposition to fundamental Church teachings. As for the others, disappointment would be more the case since the opportunity for an Orthodox witness to the culture on an issue that certainly would have garnered 'publicity' - and hence, brought the existence of the Church to the public at large - was being ignored and, thus, lost.

As to the 'status quo': well, Orthodox history is full of a great deal of 'status quo'. Sometimes this is good - the Traditions of the Church, and sometimes bad - such poor governance as we note in the present instance. I have never advocated the 'status quo' when that 'status quo' is contrary to the good of the Church and the faithful. Indeed, my very vociferous expressions of 'disappointment' regarding the 'status quo' condition of silence on the issue of abortion and other 'life issues' speaks volumes for my opposition to the 'status quo'.

On the other hand, addressing issues such as have come before us now require great care in the handling thereof. Someone made a reference to these matters as being a 'cancer' in the Church and that is accurate enough. Yet, any physician knows that you don't approach cancer by simply 'cutting away' without any concern with the collateral damage that might be done to surrounding vital organs. Even radical surgery in the case of cancer is not undertaken lightly nor is it the only means by which the matter is addressed. To demand that any steps being taken be such as to give the appearance that the 'guilty' are being punished and 'order' is being restored fails to take into account just how confusing and diffuse these matters may, in fact, be. There might be no 'smoking gun', no central thread leading to the 'heart' of the problem and thus permitting a (reasonably) quick and satisfactory conclusion. What this type of situation inevitably means is that every revelation simply make more obscure in many instances just what has taken place. Let us be realistic. At present we have an extremely messy situation that has been exacerbated by years of less than proficient management and often little oversight. Furthermore, this situation can be found not only in the National Chancery. Of course, this means that, like many cancers, the 'roots' may be so widespread as to require years of effort to address and correct the problem(s) but that is not what most people wish to hear nor accept.

I have counseled patience not because I wish the matter to remain unaddressed. Indeed, even if that were my wish (and it isn't), that is no longer possible. I have counseled patience insofar as awaiting the results of the investigations now underway and to give a chance to those 'in charge' to come forward with their assessments of what has happened and make known to the faithful what they plan to do to correct past errors and/or misdeeds and to assure that the same will not happen in the future. Just as any horseman knows that you do not try to force a skittish horse over a jump but allow the animal to gain condidence until he performs willingly, so we must be prepared to allow those in authority in the Church - clergy and lay - to assess and address these issues (however tardily) and bring to us their conclusions and plans for the future. To attempt to 'stampede' them into action with cries of collusion and threats of removal or defrocking is to assure that the 'accursed silence' against which all here seem to rail will continue if for no other reason than self-preservation.

I was a Roman Catholic before I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church in 1961. The Roman Church insisted on 'defining' everything and doing so relatively quickly and hence began its journey down a road of the formations of heretical doctrines which necessitated the formation of further heretical doctrines in their support. The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, trusted to TIME to determine the legitimacy of its Councils believing that God in His OWN time would make known to the Church whether (or not) a particular Council was valid. It worked! I now suggest that we - like the great Fathers of the Church be at least willing to give some time to those who are attempting to address this matter. After all, it is hardly as important or earth-shattering as the great heresies of the past. It is a matter of Church governance, not Church doctrine and even if it is never resolved to everyone's satisfaction, we at least know that an attempt is underway to make the effort to do so. Fruthermore, if a reasonable time passes and nothing is forthcoming, there is still time to raise the issue again. I know of know statute of limitations on dishonesty.

However, since none of this affects the validity of the sacraments or Apostolic succession, I believe that we might be better occupied praying for the well being and success of those who are attempting to 'fix' the matter and asking God to bless their efforts. Who knows? Maybe they will be successful in their efforts if the prayers of the faithful are with them.

M. Valerie Protopapas

We all watch too much television. We have come to expect things to follow some nice, neat plot-line that will be 'solved' in 60 minutes or in several installments. It is obvious - at least to me - that what we are dealing with in the instant case is a methodology in the Orthodox Church that dates WAY back. In some instances, I don't doubt that St. Constantine had to put up with it.

One of the most damaging things to the OCA was the 'split' between the National Church and the Diocese of New York and New Jersey. Many people thought it would be good for the Diocese because there were all sorts of complaints about the the parishes of the two states being the 'stepchildren' of the National Chancery - and to a certain extent, that was correct. However, once there was no direct contact and the National Chancery - which was part of the "Diocese of Washington", a rather non-existent entity at the time - found itself virtually autonomous. This led to a lot of things that would much better never having happened (I'm sure we all remember the group of nuns housed in Syosset who performed the tasks of housekeepers etc. to the Chancery staff before someone 'wised up' and ended the matter).

In sum, the Chancery has developed over the years methods of doing things that were at best confusing and at worst inexplicable. I don't think that there was any true dishonesty, but I do believe that it became a matter of the ends justifying the means in many instances. Under such circumstances, sloppy practices led to sloppy accountability or, in this case, virtually no accountability.

The simple fact is that we may never have (as I have already posited) a 'smoking gun', a 'thief' with a suitcase (or a freezer) full of 'hot' money or anything really juicy to satisfy the 'Law & Order' devotees. We may be looking at a miserable Gordian Knot that will take months if not years to unravel and address and even then, 'restitution' may never come about because nobody really knows what happened!

If that is the case, then we must be prepared to deal with that scenario but I fear that already there are those who will demand retribution be brought down on someone's head simply because it will allay the angst from which they are suffering. :-/ I, too, would like to see all this neatly wrapped up, accounts settled, funds properly distributed, bad practices abandoned and apologies all round from those who were supposed to be 'overseeing' the well being of the Church. Yet, I 'fear' that that may not happen and I 'fear' even worse what the result will be if my 'fears' come to pass. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

M. Valerie Protopapas